The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Evaluation Of Bikesafe Scotland

CHAPTER SIX: IMPACT OF BIKESAFE SCOTLAND ON RIDER ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR

Introduction

6.1 This chapter draws on findings from the pre- and post-course survey of 2002 participants to look at the impact of Bikesafe Scotland on participants' attitudes and behaviour. As the response rate for the post-course survey was only 34%, there was obviously a large element of self-selection in terms of deciding to participate in this part of the study. In order to explore potential non-response bias in the findings presented in this chapter, information from pre-course questionnaires was analysed to see if there were any significant differences between those who returned post-course questionnaires and those who did not. In fact, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, sex, social grade, the type and size of bike they ride, whether they obtained their licence through the Direct Access scheme or not, whether they have gone periods without riding and whether they are members of any motorcycle groups or clubs. Only data from those who returned both a pre-course and a post-course questionnaire is used in this chapter, so the two data sets are directly comparable.

Impact on riding speed

6.2 Riding speed and attitudes to riding speed are measured in two ways in the questionnaire. First, respondents were shown pictures of six different roads (varying from built up residential roads to motorways) and asked to state what their normal riding speed would be on the different road types. Respondents were not told what the actual speed limits on these roads were, to try and give reduce the problem of them giving what they perceive as 'socially acceptable' responses. ¹¹ The pictures shown to respondents are provided as Appendix B.Second, the questionnaire included a list of errors and violations that riders might make. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they made each kind of error or violation. The list included three items relating specifically to speeding - on motorways, in towns and on country roads.

6.3 Table 6.1 shows the percentage of respondents saying their normal speed is below, at or over the speed limit in the 2002 pre-course and the 2002 post-course survey for the six different road types. The proportion of respondents saying they normally ride above the speed limit by 10mph or more is higher after Bikesafe than before for road 1 (a fairly empty 3-lane motorway) and road 6 (a rural road with a 60mph limit). Before taking part in Bikesafe, 28% of respondents indicated a 'normal' speed that was above the speed limit for road 1, while after Bikesafe 41% indicated that they normally rode above the speed limit on this type of road. Similarly, on road 6 the proportion who indicated 'normal' speeds above the speed limit was 15% before and 28% after Bikesafe. Additionally, the proportion saying they ride below the speed limit on these two road types decreased in the post-course surveyhas reduced. However, the pictures used to depict these two road types show clear, empty roads away from residential areas. Similarly, t Similarly, the proportion who ride below the speed limit on road 2 and 3 type roads has decreased, while the proportion riding at the speed limit has increased. Road 2 shows a dual carriageway, while road 3 is a broad, empty street away from any obviously residential buildings.he proportion who ride below the speed limit on road Two and Three type roads has decreased, while the proportion riding at the speed limit has increased.

6.4 Conversely, on the two roads which are most obviously in residential built up areas with bus stops and parked cars, normal riding speeds have reduced overall with higher proportions of riders saying they normally ride below the speed limit after Bikesafe than before. This apparent changed speed behaviour on the different road types could be interpreted as suggesting that riders have been encouraged to adapt their speed to be appropriate to the prevailing road conditions. Alternatively, it could be argued that increased confidence has encouraged riders to increase their speed.

Table 6.1: Percentage of pre- and post-course participants whose normal speed is above or below the speed limit for different roads

6.5 Second, respondents were asked how often they would exceed the speed limit on different road types and in different circumstances. As table 6.2 shows, a similar pattern emerges as above in relation to the different road types to how often respondents say they exceed the speed limit on different types of roads when the roads are asked about directly. The proportion of post-course participants who say they often exceed the speed limit limit 'frequently' or 'nearly all the time' on motorways and on country roads is higher than the proportion of pre-course participants (although the increase in the proportion speeding on country roads is not statistically significant). Conversely, a higher proportion of post-course respondents say they 'never or hardly ever' exceed the speed limit in town.

Table 6.2: Percentage of pre- and post-course participants whose normal speed is above or below the speed limit for different roads

6.6 While the shift in the proportion of respondents indicating that they do exceed the speed limit is perhaps not very large, the findings from several different questions about speeding behaviour are mutually reinforcing. They suggest that after participating in Bikesafe some respondents are riding faster on fast, 'open' roads, while some respondents are riding more slowly on slow roads in built-up areas. This apparent changed speed behaviour on the different road types could be interpreted as suggesting that riders have been encouraged to adapt their speed to be appropriate to the prevailing road conditions. Alternatively, it could be argued that increased confidence has encouraged riders to increase their speed. The possibility that some participants engage in 'risk compensation', whereby they trade off new-found confidence and increased skill against higher speed, reflects the findings of previous studies on road safety interventions. For example, European research on the impact of training aimed at helping young drivers cope on slippery roads found that participants' accident involvement actually increased after the training. ¹² It was suggested that although they had achieved a small increase in competence in terms of their ability to handle difficult driving conditions, this was offset by a large increase in confidence in their own abilities as drivers.

Impact on behaviour in relation to violations/mistakes

6.7 Table 6.3 shows the frequency of a range of violations and mistakes made by Bikesafe participants pre- and post-course. There does not appear to be a big difference in the reported frequency of violations and/or rule-bending pre- and post- Bikesafe. In relation to just over half of the mistakes or violations shown in the table, there had been no discernible change in frequency pre- and post-course. In relation to three of the violations or mistakes, the proportion saying they 'never' or 'hardly ever' did them is slightly higher post-course than pre-course. The mistakes which appear to have reduced in frequency are 'braking too quickly on a slippery road', 'finding your back wheel slipping away when you take a bend' and 'forgetting to switch off indicators after a manoeuvre'. The first two of these are associated with control over the bike. Since 'loss of control' was identified as the most common precipitating factor in fatal motorcycle accidents where the motorcyclist was judged to be primarily responsible in a TRL report based on analysis of police fatal accident reports (Lynam et al, 2001), this appears to be a positive outcome for Bikesafe Scotland.

6.8 Conversely, the frequency of riders 'riding on the wrong side of the road to get to the head of a queue of traffic' and 'riding between lanes or slow or stationary traffic' appears to be slightly higher post-course than pre-course, although this increase is not statistically significant..

6.9 Analysis of past-participants' (those who were involved in Bikesafe in 2001) frequency of violations and rule bending shows a very similar pattern to 2002 post-participants. The only significant difference is in relation to frequency of 'becoming angered by a driver and indicating hostility'. Sixty two per cent of pre- and post-course 2002 participants 'never' or 'hardly ever' do this compared with 50% of previous participants. This could perhaps be due to the emphasis placed on 'attitude' in the Assessed Rides - was it more of a focus in 2002? Alternatively, it could be that over a year, the number of occasions where riders become angered with drivers means their frustration over-rides any lessons learned in Bikesafe.

Table 6.3: Frequency of violations and rule bending pre- and post-course

6.10 Table 6.4 shows the perceptions of participants in relation to the impact which Bikesafe has had on their riding behaviour. The results are fairly positive with less than 5% of 2001 and 2002 participants agreeing with the statement 'Bikesafe did not make any difference to the way I ride my bike'. Encouragingly, just 3% of respondents to the 2001 survey 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with the statement 'I have forgotten a lot of what I learnt on the Bikesafe scheme'. This suggests that participants do feel they retain the advice and experience they gain from Bikesafe, even when a year has elapsed since they took part.

6.11 Over 90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Bikesafe had provided them with useful safety tips and over three quarters agreed or strongly agreed that the scheme had taught them to ride more defensively. 'Defensive riding' is difficult to measure quantitatively. However, the fact that around a third of all respondents said that the most useful elements of Bikesafe were tips about 'traffic awareness, looking ahead and reading the roads correctly' - all elements associated with defensive riding - suggests that Bikesafe was fairly successful in promoting defensive riding.

6.12 A further positive sign is that around a quarter of respondents agree that they wear better protective clothing as a result of the Bikesafe Scotland scheme.

6.13 Over a third of respondents agree that Bikesafe taught them to take corners more quickly. The impact of this on safety is debatable. The decision to take corners more quickly may involve some kind of trade off between speed and safety - it could be that participants feel more confident in their riding and are therefore happy to take corners at higher speeds. Participants may previously have been cornering at speed but feeling unsafe and now feel safer. Alternatively, it could be that participants were previously endangering themselves by slowing down too much while cornering and are now adopting a more appropriate speed for the manoeuvre.

6.14 A generally positive element is that the levels of agreement are broadly similar for all statements for 2001 and 2002 participants. This suggests that any lessons learnt from the Bikesafe scheme have a long lasting effect, with those who participated over 18 months ago still agreeing they learnt from the scheme.

Table 6.4: Level of agreement with statements about affect of Bikesafe Scotland on riding behaviour (% of respondents)

• Analysis of frequency of riding above the speed limit suggests that a slightly higher proportion of participants ride faster on motorways and country roads after Bikesafe than before.
• Road type appears to be a major influence on speed, with riders being much less likely to exceed the speed limit on roads in built-up areas. Bikesafe does appear to have an impact on this, with a higher proportion of respondents saying they 'never' or 'hardly ever' exceed the speed limit in town after Bikesafe than before.
• Bikesafe does not appear to have a major impact on the frequency of the majority of violations and rule bending, with no changes in frequency occurring post-Bikesafe.
• However, after Bikesafe, participants appear to be slightly less likely to forget to turn off indicators, brake too quickly on a slippery road and find their back wheel slipping away when taking a bend. The latter two are particularly important as they are associated with improved bike control - a central theme of Bikesafe Scotland.
• Participants' perceptions of the impact of Bikesafe on their riding are, however more positive. Less than 5% of participants agreed that 'Bikesafe did not make any difference to the way I ride my bike'.
• Conversely, over 90% agreed that Bikesafe had provided them with useful safety tips and over three quarters agreed that the scheme had taught them to ride more defensively.
• The concurrence in attitudes between 2001 and 2002 participants is encouraging as it suggests that participants retain lessons from Bikesafe even when a year has elapsed since participation.

« Previous | Contents | Next »